6 and conducts. Consequently, Peru asks the Court to reject this request for provisional measures. 12. The Order of the acting President of March 24, 2010, in which he decided, inter alia: 1. To require the State, in accordance with the provisions in the fourth to seventh considering paragraphs, to abstain from extraditing Wong Ho Wing until this request for provisional measures has been decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in plenary. 2. To order that this matter be examined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in plenary during its eighty-seventh regular session to be held at the seat of the Court from May 17 to 28, 2010. 13. The brief of April 27, 2010, and its attachments, in which Peru asked that the acting President “allow the Peruvian State to take the floor at the hearing [to be] held by the Court in plenary during its eighty-seventh regular session.” 14. The note of May 3, 2010, in which, since no public hearing has been convened in the instant case, the Secretariat asked the State to formally clarify its request to the Court, so that the Court could consider it. 15. The brief of May 6, 2010, in which the State “withdr[ew] [its request] to take the floor” in response to the Secretariat’s call for clarification. 16. The brief of May 10, 2010, with which the State forwarded the communication of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Peru of May 5, 2010, and its attachments, in which it indicated “the commitment of the Chinese Government not to sentence to death the Chinese citizen Wong Ho Yong or Huang He Yong” and forwarded various documents issued by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China in Peru and the Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires, “to be formally incorporated into the case file.” These documents included the communication of April 22, 2010, addressed to the acting President, in which the requesting State indicated that “if he is declared guilty of the offense for which he would be prosecuted in the People’s Republic of China, the death penalty would not be imposed on any grounds.” Furthermore, in the same brief of May 10, the Peruvian State forwarded a communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of April 26, 2010, addressed to the Ambassador of China in Peru, indicating that “owing to the current status of the procedure initiated by the said Chinese citizen before the [Commission], and because the Peruvian State scrupulously respects its international commitments with regard to human rights, it is incumbent on Peru to await the final ruling by this organ before adopting a final decision in the case.” 17. The note of May 13, 2010, in which the Secretariat granted the Commission until May 18, 2010, to forward its observations on the documents provided by the State in this matter (supra having seen paragraph 16). 18. The brief of May 18, 2010, with which the State forwarded a “copy of the views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning Communication No. 470/1991 submitted by Joseph Kindler against the State of Canada”. 19. The brief of May 18, 2010, with which the Commission forwarded its observations on the information provided by the State with its brief of May 10, 2010.